Netflix, Hastings Have a History of Ignoring Shareholders: Opinion

At Netflix's annual shareholder meeting in 2011, stockholders overwhelmingly voted in favor of a proposal that would have required a simple majority vote on all issues that require greater than a simple majority vote.

You can read my coverage of the issue from 2011 over at Seeking Beta.

Let's put into perspective how big of a deal this was last year, despite the fact that the entire financial media ignored it.

Shareholders get a proposal on the proxy at Netflix's annual meeting. Shareholders approve the measure by nearly a 3-to-1 margin. It goes back to the Netflix board for adoption and -- there's no other way to state it -- they, led by Hastings, ignore the will of the shareholders and choose not to implement the proposal.

This morning, when it announced the poison pill plan, Netflix used pretty much the same language it used last year when knocking back the simple majority proposal:

[The poison pill is] intended to protect Netflix and its stockholders from efforts to obtain control of Netflix that the board of directors determines are not in the best interests of Netflix and its stockholders, and to enable all stockholders to realize the long-term value of their investment in Netflix.

That's how it rolls at Netflix. The board "determines" what is in the "best interest" of Netflix and its stockholders, even if most of these stockholders think otherwise.

Where's the Securities and Exchange Commission when you need it? There should be laws that actually get enforced against this type of behavior.

Follow @RoccoPendola

At the time of publication, Rocco Pendola held no positions in any of the stocks mentioned in this article.

Rocco Pendola is TheStreet's Director of Social Media. Pendola's daily contributions to TheStreet frequently appear on CNBC and at various top online properties, such as Forbes.

« First ‹ Previous 1 2